Thursday, October 31, 2013

This week’s parshah takes us through the
story of Yitzchak and straight into the story of Yaakov and Esav. There is a
very famous pasuk close to the beginning of the parshah which says, “וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק אֶת
עֵשָׂו כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת יַעֲקֹב”
“And Yitzchak loved Esav since his game was in his mouth, and Rivka loved
Yaakov” (Bereishis 25:28). This pasuk brings up a few questions. How could
Yitzchak love the rasha, Esav, more than the tzaddik, Yaakov? How could he be
so blinded? And how did Rivka not fall for the same tricks? Why did she not
tell Yitzchak what was really going on? And most importantly, what is the Torah
trying to tell us?

The answers given by the various
commentaries go in a number of different directions. I would like to give one
answer for Yitzchak’s love of Esav and one answer for Rivka’s love of Yaakov.
The Kli Yakar explains that the pasuk is being very specific. It is telling us
that the reason Yitzchak loved Esav was because of the bountiful amount of meat
he would bring back from hunting. Says the Kli Yakar, this was the
reason why Yitzchak really loved Esav, but in terms of their deeds, Yitzchak knew
that Yaakov was more righteous and appreciated him for it.

The Ohr HaChaim explains why Rivka was
particularly attached to Yaakov. The commentaries mention several times that
one of the signs of Rivka’s greatness was the fact that she grew up with both a
wicked father and a wicked brother and
was still able to resist their influence and grow up righteously. This scrutiny
of her background did not cease even after many years. The Ohr HaChaim explains
that when people saw how Esav was sinning, they suspected that Rivka might embrace
these qualities of Esav since she recognized them from her past. In order to dispel
these thoughts, Rivka openly showed how she approved of Yaakov’s actions and
showed how her only “background” consisted of activities that followed the
Torah. This is also why the pasuk identifies Yaakov several times as “her son”,
seemingly superfluously. It’s showing us that Rivka was just as
responsible as Yitzchak for Yaakov’s greatness and did not approve of Esav’s
actions at all.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

“וַתָּמָת שָׂרָה בְּקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִוא חֶבְרוֹן
בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן”“And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba, which is Hebron, in the land
of Canaan” (Bereishis 23:2). This week’s parshah beings with the death
of Sarah Imeinu and her subsequent burial in Me’aras Hamachpela. As you can see
above, the pasuk gives two names for the place where she died, Kiryat Arba
and Chevron (Hebron). The Kli Yakar brings a medrash which says that
there are actually four names given to this location, these two plus Eshkol
and Mamre. He then goes on to explain the significance behind these four
names.

There are four ways/reasons a person can
die. Either because of their own sins, because of the sins of others, when a
person has no sins and dies from the natural expiration of their human body,
and through a form of death called “Neshika”, literally translated as a
kiss. Neshika occurs when a person’s soul connects so strongly to Hashem on
such a high level that it can no longer return to its’ physical body and as a
result, the person “dies”. This form of death is reserved for the greatest
tzaddikim as it comes from a direct connection with Hashem.

The Kli Yakar explains that these four
styles of death are represented with these four names. The name Mamre represents
those who die from their own sins. The word Mamre comes from the word, “מַמְרִים” “Mamrim”, or “rebels”; this corresponds to sinners
who “rebel” against Hashem with their sins. (We aren’t necessarily referring to
hard-core sinners here as anyone who has even one sin, it can be claimed that
they died because of it.) The second name, Eshkol, represents those who die
because of the sins of others. When talking about those who die because of the
sins of others, it is usually children who die because of their parents. The
word Eshkol, comes from the word “שכול” “Shikol”, which refers to a person who loses a child.

The third name is Kiryat Arba which refers to those who die from their
bodies simply breaking down after so many years. The word “Arba” is translated
as “four” in English and refers here to the four elements which make up the
physical world: earth, fire, water, and air. These are the foundations of
nature and if they would expire so would the world. Similarly, these four
elements make up the human body and when they expire, so does the person
wearing it. The last name is Chevron which comes from the word “חיבור” “Chibur”, meaning
a connection. This refers to the death of Neshika where the soul connects
strongly to Hashem, to strong for it to return to the physical world.

The first two names refer to styles of death that come through sins. In
order to show us that Sarah Imeinu did
not die because of sin, the pasuk tells us that two names for the city were Kiryat
Arba and Chevron, the two names which refer to death not through sin. Because
of the pasuk, we know that Sarah died from a combination of her body expiring,
Chazal tell us that Sarah died exactly when she was supposed to, and from the
special death set aside especially for the greatest tzaddikim, Neshika.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Every year I struggle with what to write
about for Parshas Vayeira. The amount of material and amazing ideas covered in
this parshah will, b’ezras Hashem, take us many more years of Divrei Torah to
cover. This year, however, the decision was made for me. Currently, I do not
have as much time to learn Parshah during the week as I have in the past so I searched
for a shorter Dvar Torah to write up. While short, this vort is just as great.

As part of his travels, Avraham traveled
down to Garar along with Sarah. When he arrived there, Sarah was again whisked
off to King Avimelech, same as when they went to Mitzrayim. Hashem comes to
Avimelech in a dream and tells him that Sarah is a married woman and he should
return her to Avraham. In the morning, Avimelech confronts Avraham and asks him
why he did not tell him that Sarah was his sister? Avraham gives him two
answers. The first is that he saw clearly that the people of Garar had no fear
of Hashem and would not have hesitated to take Sarah even if he said
that they were married. The second answer he gives is, “וְגַם אָמְנָה אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִוא אַךְ
לֹא בַת אִמִּי וַתְּהִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה”“And also, she is indeed my sister, the daughter
of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife” (Bereishis 20:12). Avraham’s brother
was Sarah’s father; Rashi explains that since grandparents can be called
parents to their grandchildren, Sarah could also be called a child of Avraham’s
father, Terach.

The Ramban asks a simple question on
this second answer of Avraham. When Avimelech is asking Avraham why he would
say Sarah is his sister, he is asking him why he let him think that Sarah was
not his wife. When Avraham answers that really she could be called his sister,
how does that answer the question? Avimelech does not care what she can be
called, just why Avraham allowed him to be put in that situation in the first
place!

The Ramban answers by explaining Avraham’s
thought process. Avraham was telling Avimelech with his first answer that he
did not know if the people of Garar feared Hashem since back then most countries
did not. Therefore, he had a system in place with Sarah that wherever they went
they would call themselves brother and sister. If the visiting country did not
attempt to take Sarah initially, calling Sarah his sister also provided Avraham
with one extra safeguard. If the country was indeed a God-fearing place, then if
the inhabitants had any interest in Sarah, they would ask her “brother” for her
hand. Since Avraham was indeed her brother, he would have been responsible for
this. Once Avraham saw that the people took Sarah without asking him anything,
he saw that they had no fear of God and did not attempt to tell them that Sarah
was really his wife as he feared they would kill him. So really the fact that
Avraham was really Sarah’s brother is important as it allowed him to be the one
responsible for her future and he could then deny any person who came to court
her. However, Avimelech took that choice out of his hands as the second the
people found out she was not married, they took her away.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

This week’s parshah introduces us to our
forefather, Avraham, as he journeys to Eretz Yisrael. However, soon after he
arrives, he is forced to leave due to a famine and instead settles in Egypt.
When he arrives there, he makes a request of his wife, Sarah. “והיה כי יראו אתך המצרים ואמרו
אשתו זאת והרגו אתי ואתך יחיו. אמרי נא אחתי את למען ייטב לי בעבורך וחיתה נפשי
בגללך”“And it will come when the Egyptians
see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife,’ and they will kill me and let
you live. Please say that you are my sister, in order that it will go well with
me because of you, and that my soul may live because of you” (Bereishis 12:12-13). They ended up
doing exactly this and Paroh took Sarah to the palace. After Hashem punished
him for taking Sarah, Paroh figured out that she was really Avraham’s wife. He
returned her to Avraham and banished them from Egypt.

A question is asked concerning Avraham’s
behavior. Avraham feared that the Egyptians would kill him if they discovered
he was Sarah’s husband, meaning that he did not believe that they would transgress
the sin of גילוי עריות, Illicit Relations. However, he did
think they would have no problem performing a different sin, murder! How come
Avraham suspected the Egyptians would have no problem with one sin but would
with another?

This story is brought as a proof to an important Halachic question. It
is permissible to perform an action that would typically be prohibited on
Shabbos if you are doing it to help a sick person. (For the full Halachic
ramifications of this, please speak to your local Rabbi. Do NOT use this as a
Halachic decision.) The question is, if you need to make food for a sick person
and you have the option of feeding them from an animal which died of natural
causes, which we are prohibited from eating, or slaughtering a new animal,
which is not allowed on Shabbos, which one should you use? The answer is that
when you eat an animal which died naturally, you are over a Torah prohibition
with every mouthful. However, when you slaughter an animal on Shabbos, you are
only over a one-time prohibition of performing the actual slaughter. Therefore,
we say that it is better to slaughter the animal since this way, you will
transgress fewer prohibitions.

What is the connection to our story from
this Halacha? The answer is that Avraham figured the Egyptians
would be using this same logic. To steal a man’s wife and transgress the sin of
גילוי עריות means you will transgress this sin
time after time. However, if you kill the husband, you will only transgress one
sin, the sin of murder. Avraham figured that in order to transgress fewer
prohibitions, the Egyptians would be willing to kill him. Therefore, he asked
Sarah to lie for him in order to save his life. Therefore, he suspected them of
murder but not גילוי עריות. Since either way the Egyptians would be taking Sarah, there
was nothing he could do to protect her.

It is hard to know what to take
from a Dvar Torah like this as it seems very unlikely that the Egyptians were
making calculations based on the laws of Shabbos! However, there is one lesson I
think we can learn for sure. We see from this story that a true Torah scholar,
someone who is truly a wise man, uses that same logic and thought process from
their learning and sees it in every episode of their life. They truly live the
Torah as well as learn it. That is why Avraham could look at his situation
stuck between a rock and a hard place and come up with this logic. And that is
how the great Rabbis who came up with this vort saw it too.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

This week’s Parshah, Parshas Noach,
tells the famous story of how Hashem brought a flood for forty days and forty
nights on the world and destroyed it. The only survivors were Noach, his family,
and all the animals which he brought onto his ark which Hashem had told him to
build. The Torah documents how Hashem told Noach that from the impure animals,
he should only bring two into the ark while he should bring seven pairs from
pure animals.

The only reference we have to animals
being called pure or impure is in regard to their kosher status. And so, Rashi
explains, “העתידה
להיות טהורה לישראל למדנו שלמד נח תורה”“(The word “pure” refers to) the animals which
will in the future be pure for Yisrael. We see from here that Noach learned the
Torah”
(Bereishis 7:2 Rashi). The Sifsei Chachamim explains that Rashi understands this
simply that the only way Noach could know which animals Hashem was referring to
was if he had already learned the Torah. The Gur Aryeh however, asks a question
on Rashi. We learn in Perek 6 Pasuk 20 (see Rashi) that the animals came by themselves
to the ark without Noach going out to gather them and when they came to the
door of the ark, the ark itself admitted them! If there was still a need
for that animal, the ark would let it in, however, if the quota for that animal
had already been filled, the ark would not let the animal in! So what proof is
there that Noach learned Torah if it was the ark who decided which type of
animal needed seven and which type only needed two?

The answer is that the ark was not
programmed to only take seven or two of each species of animal, it was
programmed to take which ever animals deserved to be saved from the
flood. Since there must have been more than seven of each animal deserving to
be saved, many more animals must have been admitted by the ark. So Noach had to
take seven animals out of all the animals which showed up. The only way he
could know which species needed seven and which needed two was if he had
learned the Torah and knew which animals were kosher.

The Ohr HaChaim explains this pasuk in a
different light. The pasuk reads, “מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה
תִּקַּח לְךָ שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה”“Of all the pure animals you shall take for yourself seven
pairs”
(Bereishis 7:2). He explains that when Hashem told Noach to take the animals “for
yourself”, He meant for your own purposes, meaning in order to eat and to bring
korbanos. Perhaps we can use this to answer the question in the pasuk, that
really the ark only accepted seven of each animal, not like the Gur Aryeh, and really
Noach did not learn the Torah, unlike Rashi.